New quantization method

A new quantization method for relativistic fields has been recently proposed. Compact time naturally reproduces canonical quantum mechanics as well as the path integral formulation, and in a deterministic way (no hidden-variables)! It seems to be a new way of thinking to the concept of time flow with interesting consequences for the problem of time symmetry.

"Free bosonic fields are investigated at a classical level by imposing their characteristic de Broglie periodicities as constraints. In analogy with finite temperature field theory and with extra-dimensional field theories, this compactification naturally leads to a quantized energy spectrum. As a consequence of the relation between periodicity and energy arising from the de Broglie relation, the compactification must be regarded as dynamical and local. The theory, whose fundamental set-up is presented in this paper, turns out to be consistent with special relativity and in particular respects causality. The non trivial classical dynamics of these periodic fields show remarkable overlaps with ordinary quantum field theory. This can be interpreted as a generalization of the AdS/CFT correspondence."

It is possible to formulate a consistent relativistic field theory of quantum mechanics without assuming any hidden-variable in the theory and using essentially deterministic mechanics (Compact time and determinism: foundation; Found. Phys, arXiv:0903.3680). The quantization is obtained by imposing a periodic boundary conditions to solve the relativistic wave equation. It is similar to the quantization of a particle in a box where the quantized energies are obtained by imposing boundary conditions to the matter waves. In this way there are not local hidden variable at all. The EPR problem and Bell theorem are bypassed.

You made this post in another thread. I hope it's ok to ask questions here.
You say that with your interpretation (I guess it can be called interpretation as there is "exact correspondence with ordinary quantum field theory") bypass Bell theorem as there are no hidden variables. But still it's deterministic.
So the question is what in this case determines probabilities of detection coincidences? Or what determines particular outcome of photon polarization measurement at one of the sites?

You made this post in another thread. I hope it's ok to ask questions here.
You say that with your interpretation (I guess it can be called interpretation as there is "exact correspondence with ordinary quantum field theory") bypass Bell theorem as there are no hidden variables. But still it's deterministic.
So the question is what in this case determines probabilities of detection coincidences? Or what determines particular outcome of photon polarization measurement at one of the sites?

This thread is to discuss about that intriguing idea.

From that paper:

"It turns out that if the time accuracy is ∆t ≫ T_t , at every observation the field Φ(x, t) [a quantum system] appears in an arbitrary phase |n⟩ [Hilbert eigenstate] of its cyclic evolution, so that the evolution has an apparent aleatoric behavior; as if observing a clock under a stroboscopic light [27], or a dice rolling to fast to predict the result. In fact, as already discussed in sec.(1.2), if the underlying periodic dynamics are too fast to be observe (~ 10^20s ), the time evolution between two column states |n⟩ [two Hilbert eigenstates] can only be described statistically".

T_t is the "de broglie internal clock" of the system: T_t = h / E. E is the energy of the quanta. A vibrating string with period T_t gives a harmonic quantized spectrum w_n = n w that is a quantized energy spectrum E_n = n h w. This is the quantized energy of a field (neglecting the vacuum energy).

Now you must consider that :

1) the quantum limit of electromagnetism arises at high frequencies.
2) "an electron at rest has an internal de Broglie clock of about T_t = 10^−20s [ T_t=L_c/c= h / m_e c^2, m_e= electron mass, L_c= 2.4263102175±33×10−12 meters meters = Compton wavelength ].
Consider that the period of the cesium atom is "by definition" ~ 10^10 s (nearly the same difference between a solar year and the age of the universe).

As far as I can understand from that paper (this is my interpretation), it is not possible to determine the exact outcome of a photon whenever:
1) the thermal noise is too big
2) the time resolution is poor w.r.t. the de Broglie internal clock. Since in the emission of polarized photon necessarily involves electrons, the time resolution must be better that 10^-20s. This is impossible to achieve at the present, "so that the evolution has an apparent aleatoric behavior".
But the underlying dynamics are deterministic like in a "dice rolling to fast to predict the result".

This is impossible to achieve at the present, "so that the evolution has an apparent aleatoric behavior".

Or in short you have no idea, right?

I don't think that there is anything wrong with idea of "de Broglie internal clock" but it doesn't seems that the idea goes anywhere beyond that.
So to me it seems like rediscovery of some well known things. Or am I missing something?

What I wanted to say is that, in that theory, the outcomes of the measurements are determined by the intrinsic too fast periodic dynamics of the elementary systems (and interactions). We are not able to predict the outcome because of our poor resolution in time and we only see aleatoric results. But the aleatoric behavior is not fundamental. It is due to the fact that we can't measure with infinite precision the boundary conditions of a system, just like in Newtonian physics. The mathematics behind that is deterministic but this doesn't mean that we can predict everything.

That theory would represent a big conceptual difference with ordinary quantum mechanics and could bring to a enormous improvement in quantum computation techniques (the mathematics that reproduces quantum mechanics is extremely simplified).

So to speak, even if "God" seems to play Dice with us, He knows the outcomes as long as he has infinite time resolution or He knows exactly the boundary conditions (He doesn't cheat by using hidden variables or similar tricks).

What I wanted to say is that, in that theory, the outcomes of the measurements are determined by the intrinsic too fast periodic dynamics of the elementary systems (and interactions). We are not able to predict the outcome because of our poor resolution in time and we only see aleatoric results. But the aleatoric behavior is not fundamental. It is due to the fact that we can't measure with infinite precision the boundary conditions of a system, just like in Newtonian physics. The mathematics behind that is deterministic but this doesn't mean that we can predict everything.

Fine it's deterministic but we can't predict everything. Nothing wrong with that as I see.
But the question is what we can predict?

That theory would represent a big conceptual difference with ordinary quantum mechanics and could bring to a enormous improvement in quantum computation techniques (the mathematics that reproduces quantum mechanics is extremely simplified).

QUOTE=zonde;2864642]Fine it's deterministic but we can't predict everything. Nothing wrong with that as I see.
But the question is what we can predict?
[/QUOTE]

I think the most appropriate thread to discuss the philosophical implications of determinism could be for instance https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2864506#post2864506".
With determinism I mean mathematical determinism. In principle you can simulate a quantum system (such as an radioactive atom) and predict the outcomes exactly. In that simulation you can predict when the Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive. If this is nothing important for you, just take look to the history of physics of the last century.

For instance read the paper. Your question is not sufficiently specific. With that quantization prescription you can easily solve Schrödinger problems, superconductivity and it seems to give an intuitive interpretation of the AdS/CFT.

So to speak, even if "God" seems to play Dice with us, He knows the outcomes as long as he has infinite time resolution or He knows exactly the boundary conditions (He doesn't cheat by using hidden variables or similar tricks).

This looks very interesting. As far as I understand both Bohr & Einstein believed in an "deeper" reality, that Bohr thought humans could never reach, and Einstein thought was possible to reach thru logic and mathematics.

I will read the paper (slowly and repeatedly) in the weekend, but until then some questions:

When talking about "time resolutions", how is that related to relativity? Is there an "exact time"?

Is it possible to explain what happens in EPR-Bell?

If this bypasses Bell's Theorem with no hidden variables, what is gone – Locality or Realism (we can’t have both)?

This looks very interesting. As far as I understand both Bohr & Einstein believed in an "deeper" reality, that Bohr thought humans could never reach, and Einstein thought was possible to reach thru logic and mathematics.

Logic is the wonderful weapon that we have to understand nature.

I will read the paper (slowly and repeatedly) in the weekend, but until then some questions:

Have fun, and if you have problems, just ask me.

When talking about "time resolutions", how is that related to relativity? Is there an "exact time"?

I am not sure I understand your question. The time periodicity (de Broglie internal clock) of a massive particle in its reference system define the mass of the particle and is proportional to the Compton wavelength [tex]T_\tau = \lambda_s/c = h / \bar M c^2[/tex]. When you observe that particle with a time resolution [tex]\Delta t < T_\tau[/tex] is like observing a field with a spatial resolution greater that the Compton lenght: you observe quantum effects because you excite many "harmonics modes" of the particle, or in ordinary field theory language you create pair of particles.... In a different reference system the "de Broglie internal clock" of that massive particle transforms according to Lorentz.

Is it possible to explain what happens in EPR-Bell?

Bell is mentioned in this way: "Therefore model proposed in this paper is deterministic since it represents a possible way out of the Bell’s inequality or similar non-local-hidden-variable theorems [31]." Since there are no hidden-varialbes and an there is exact matching with ordinary QM (as Feynman said "same equation, same physics") the EPR experiment based on this deterministic theory should reproduce the same predictions of QM.

If this bypasses Bell's Theorem with no hidden variables, what is gone – Locality or Realism (we can’t have both)?

I’ll get back later...

As far as I can see there is local realism (but I am not sure if this is the correct interpretation of the theory).

I think the most appropriate thread to discuss the philosophical implications of determinism could be for instance https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2864506#post2864506".
With determinism I mean mathematical determinism. In principle you can simulate a quantum system (such as an radioactive atom) and predict the outcomes exactly. In that simulation you can predict when the Schrödinger's cat is dead or alive. If this is nothing important for you, just take look to the history of physics of the last century.

Probably you misunderstood my question.
I am not asking about philosophical implications of determinism. I am asking what can be predicted given all the technical limitations we have today.

For example, we have unpolarized beam of light and we pass it trough two polarizers. What determines intensity of light after second polarizer (given some relative angle between their polarization axes)?
You said there are no hidden variables. Does it mean that in my example two polarizers are somehow phase locked?

For instance read the paper. Your question is not sufficiently specific. With that quantization prescription you can easily solve Schrödinger problems, superconductivity and it seems to give an intuitive interpretation of the AdS/CFT.

I read the paper (at least partially). I did not see the simplification you claim. Therefore I asked you to demonstrate it with some example.

Probably you misunderstood my question.
I am not asking about philosophical implications of determinism. I am asking what can be predicted given all the technical limitations we have today.

For example, we have unpolarized beam of light and we pass it trough two polarizers. What determines intensity of light after second polarizer (given some relative angle between their polarization axes)?
You said there are no hidden variables. Does it mean that in my example two polarizers are somehow phase locked?

Sorry but I still don't understand your question. Polarization is an effect of transverse classical waves (fields) and the theory is based on fields (there are not [tex] \hbar[/tex] involved). I don't see why you need "hidden variables" for that and what you mean with "phase locked".

I read the paper (at least partially). I did not see the simplification you claim. Therefore I asked you to demonstrate it with some example.

Quantization of relativistic fields without using ladder operators or the derivation of path integral as interference or classical paths ("without relaxing the classical variational principle") are simplifications in your opinion?

Sorry but I still don't understand your question. Polarization is an effect of transverse classical waves (fields) and the theory is based on fields (there are not [tex] \hbar[/tex] involved). I don't see why you need "hidden variables" for that and what you mean with "phase locked".

Polarization is this "hidden variable" as it concerns Bell tests using photon polarization.
If you say that "polarization is an effect of transverse classical waves" then it contradicts your statement that there are no hidden variables (as it concerns Bell inequalities).
That's the reason why I asked if polarizers are "phase locked" because I got impression that you are saying that there are no such thing as classical polarization of photons.

Quantization of relativistic fields without using ladder operators or the derivation of path integral as interference or classical paths ("without relaxing the classical variational principle") are simplifications in your opinion?

Can't say anything about quantization of relativistic fields.

About the derivation of path integral - isn't it always derived as interference?
Only in this case it works at the scale of single period of de Broglie internal clock if I understand it correctly.
Classical paths are great. They appear at the scale bigger then de Broglie internal clock, right?

Only there are effects similar to those from small scale at larger scales. Is there anything about that? I believe that they necessarily involve interaction between individual particles and larger systems that we treat as measurement equipment.

Polarization is this "hidden variable" as it concerns Bell tests using photon polarization.
If you say that "polarization is an effect of transverse classical waves" then it contradicts your statement that there are no hidden variables (as it concerns Bell inequalities).
That's the reason why I asked if polarizers are "phase locked" because I got impression that you are saying that there are no such thing as classical polarization of photons.

Classical electromagnetic field has polarization without involving hidden-variables, no contradictions here. In that case it could be quantized by imposing periodic boundary conditions but the phase of the polarization depends on the the fast dynamics of the de Broglie internal clocks (of the sources for instance).

Knowledge of quantum field theory is necessary to understand that theory. However you can try to read it even if you do know quantum field theory. The formalism, as I was saying, is very simplified with respect the usual quantum field theory. Essentially it is used Fourier transform on a compact interval and relativistic wave equation.

About the derivation of path integral - isn't it always derived as interference?

Classically there is only a single path between an initial and final point. To have interference in the Feynman formulation you have to assume "off-shell" paths, "relaxing" the classical variational principle. The interference in the Feynman formulation can't be justified classically. But if you assume intrinsic periodicities you have many possible paths with different winding numbers (in a cylinder you can link to point with infinite paths). They are all classical paths and, as shown in that paper, they reproduce the Feynman path integral. That's the fundamental different between the two approaches.

Only in this case it works at the scale of single period of de Broglie internal clock if I understand it correctly.
Classical paths are great. They appear at the scale bigger then de Broglie internal clock, right?

Only there are effects similar to those from small scale at larger scales. Is there anything about that? I believe that they necessarily involve interaction between individual particles and larger systems that we treat as measurement equipment.

Probably you have to read completely the paper to have a complete idea of the theory. You will see that investigating a "de broglie internal clock" at time scales smaller than its periodicity you have a wave description. In this case the periodic boundary condition can be neglected. In the opposite limit you have a particle description since the effect of the periodic constraint is important. This description is totally consistent with ordinary quantum field theory. Think to the fact that the classical description of electromagnetism is in terms of waves and the classical description of massive fields is in terms of particles.

Since there are no hidden-varialbes and an there is exact matching with ordinary QM (as Feynman said "same equation, same physics") the EPR experiment based on this deterministic theory should reproduce the same predictions of QM.
...
As far as I can see there is local realism (but I am not sure if this is the correct interpretation of the theory).

Okay, if the "new quantization method" predicts the same results as QM and local realism still hold, that must mean standard QM is somewhat 'wrong'... which is very interesting. (I’ll read the paper tomorrow and see if I make the same conclusion.)

...

I stumble over this article which is very exciting:

"[URL [Broken] catch sight of trembling particle – physicsworld.com

[/URL]

And a sign that is strongly "correlated" is that it’s commented by "dolce". Can it be anybody else than Donatello Dolce??

As far I know evidences of this "periodic phenomenon" was first conjectured by de Broglie in 1924 and strictly related to the rest mass of any generic particle (not only fermions). It is called de Broglie internal clock and has been indirectly observed in a recent experiment. The reference is:

De Broglie associated a frequency to the energy of the quanta through the Planck constant: E = h v. Since the energy at rest is the mass of the particle E = m c^2, there is an intrinsic frequency associated to the mass of every elementary massive field M c^2 = h v. Actually, for the electron this frequency is 10^21 Hz.

Moreover, according to this paper the Zitterbewegung was originally discussed by Schrodinger in 1930. The de Broglie internal clock has recently inspired a novel and deterministic field quantization method.
Edited by dolce on Feb 3, 2010 11:23 PM.

Just a late-night-thought:

This (internal) trembling motion of an elementary particle is new to me (extern = not new = heat). I always thought that an elementary particle should be regarded as a "point". Isn’t this vibration a strong indication (proof?) that elementary particles are vibrating strings...?

This is also very interesting in the physicsworld.com article:

The researchers found that changes to the particle's effective mass while its momentum was kept constant led to the disappearance of zitterbewegung in the non-relativistic and highly relativistic limits (large and small effective masses, respectively). However, the quivering motion was clearly present in the regime between these limits.

Does this mean the quivering vibrating "string behavior" is related to mass?? Is mass the key to the transition between QM and classical behavior??

Right! Thread https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=425312"". The time periodicity in the rest frame for an electron is h/M c^2 = 10^-20 s (10^20 Hz). But if you give energy to the particle, the periodicity is even faster h/E < h / M c^2 since E > M c^2 , where M is the rest mass. For heavier masses the periodicity is faster.

Okay, if the "new quantization method" predicts the same results as QM and local realism still hold, that must mean standard QM is somewhat 'wrong'... which is very interesting. (I’ll read the paper tomorrow and see if I make the same conclusion.)

This means that quantum mechanics is an emerging phenomenon. It is the statistical description of too fast periodic dynamics.

I stumble over this article which is very exciting:

Physicists catch sight of trembling particle – physicsworld.com

And a sign that is strongly "correlated" is that it’s commented by "dolce". Can it be anybody else than Donatello Dolce??

Just a late-night-thought:

This (internal) trembling motion of an elementary particle is new to me (extern = not new = heat). I always thought that an elementary particle should be regarded as a "point". Isn’t this vibration a strong indication (proof?) that elementary particles are vibrating strings...?

This is also very interesting in the physicsworld.com article:

Does this mean the quivering vibrating "string behavior" is related to mass?? Is mass the key to the transition between QM and classical behavior??

Maybe silly...

Actually there is a deep analogy with string theory. The assumption of compact time (time periodicity) implies compact proper time or vice vera, according to Lorentz. Compact proper time means that the worldline parameter of the field is compact and it plays the role of the compact worldline parameter of strings.

Okay, if the "new quantization method" predicts the same results as QM and local realism still hold, that must mean standard QM is somewhat 'wrong'... which is very interesting. (I’ll read the paper tomorrow and see if I make the same conclusion.)

This means that quantum mechanics is an emerging phenomenon. It is the statistical description of too fast periodic dynamics.

Compact Time and Determinism for Bosons: foundations (page 5)

It is important to note that, in our theory, by supposing that the quantum behavior arises from periodicity boundary conditions, we are avoiding the introduction of hidden variables and at the same time we are implicitly introducing a non-locality, so that our model is not constrained by Bell’s theorem [31].

It is important to note that, in our theory, by supposing that the quantum behavior arises from periodicity boundary conditions, we are avoiding the introduction of hidden variables and at the same time we are implicitly introducing a non-locality, so that our model is not constrained by Bell’s theorem [31].

Aha! Non-locality is the answer!

Why do I like this thing, more and more...

Yes, you are right. But this kind of non-locality is in agreement with relativistic causality.
Pag 20 "On the other hand the periodic conditions in eq.(3) can be regarded as an element of non locality (which is consistent with relativistic causality) in the theory." The reason is that the propagation of the energy is interpreted as a propagation of variation of periodicity (T=h/E) which is the "element of non locality in the theory".

Classical electromagnetic field has polarization without involving hidden-variables, no contradictions here. In that case it could be quantized by imposing periodic boundary conditions but the phase of the polarization depends on the the fast dynamics of the de Broglie internal clocks (of the sources for instance).

I do not understand what you are saying here.
So classical electromagnetic field has polarization. Fine.
Now what is "phase of polarization"?

I do not understand what you are saying here.
So classical electromagnetic field has polarization. Fine.
Now what is "phase of polarization"?

I think your problem is not polarization, but the entanglement of polarized photons, isn't it?
In this case you must think to the EPR experiment by replacing the hidden-variable with some sort of deterministic dynamics that doesn't involve hidden variable. Shortly, imagine that the polarization of the two photons can be for instance determined (at the moment of the emission) by deterministic dynamics intrinsically too fast to be resolved experimentally (of the source)....

In this case you must think to the EPR experiment by replacing the hidden-variable with some sort of deterministic dynamics that doesn't involve hidden variable. Shortly, imagine that the polarization of the two photons can be for instance determined (at the moment of the emission) by deterministic dynamics intrinsically too fast to be resolved experimentally (of the source)....

I have imagined that before and it didn't make sense then and there is nothing different now.
The problem is that polarizer apparently can resolve those hypothetical dynamics and give quite certain outcome.